Opinion
25320-21
10-14-2022
ANDREW A. CEJAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The initial petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on July 12, 2021, and a First Amended Petition followed on April 4, 2022. Taxable year 2020 seemed to be indicated as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition or amended petition. Rather, petitioner's statements in the petition centered on complaints pertaining to petitioner's failure to receive so-called economic impact stimulus payments. He also incorporated a request for "tax forgiveness of interest and taxes of $250,000".
Subsequently, on July 1, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of determination pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) had been sent to petitioner with respect to the taxable year 2020, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to such tax year that would confer jurisdiction on this Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioner was served with copy of respondent's motion and on August 29, 2022, filed an objection. Therein, petitioner did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioner did not claim or show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2020 or any other year and in fact conceded: "The Commissioner did not send a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action for taxes in 2020 because Petitioner does not owe taxes, penalties, or interest." Instead, petitioner reiterated his claims of entitlement to economic impact stimulus payments as an inmate incarcerated in California and seemed to take the novel and inverse position that it was he who was entitled to a Court hearing to collect such payments from the IRS. To wit, petitioner stated: "This Tax Court has jurisdiction for a Collection due process hearing of petitioner's stimulus claims from the IRS with interest. Petitioner has timely invoke [sic] jurisdiction under case (Docket No. 25320-21), and warrant a Collection due process hearing to collect stimulus payment from the IRS. The liabilities are correct against IRS Commissioner with interest added to stimulus payment." As such, he further opined: "This Court does not need a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action for stimulus payments collection, and this Court has jurisdiction for collection of stimulus payments from the IRS two year delay." Conversely, petitioner did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioner to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioner's apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above. Stated otherwise, the Tax Court has no role or authority in the administration of the so-called economic stimulus payments.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.